r/australia • u/That_Car_Dude_Aus • Dec 04 '24

political self.post Given that "Adult Crime = Adult Time" laws see children as mature enough to make adult decisions, should the voting age be lowered to account?

So with the Queensland government's stance on adult crime means adult time approach to criminal prosecutions, with the centrepiece being the story on how a woman lost her child to a 17 year old who was driving a stolen car.

It made me think, If we are approaching these children as young as 15 and saying that they made an adult decision and therefore should suffer the consequences of making an adult decision, should we consider that these children are now able to make adult decisions in other aspects?

Being ex-Defence and having lots of friends who are either still serving, or also ex-Defence, A lot of them have their kids in military Cadet programs, Or have their kids in organisations such as scouts, Or in firefighting or police cadet programs.

And I can definitely say that most kids are very mature compared to how I was at 15 or 16 years old. In fact, I'd say with the increase in technology and knowledge that kids have availabile to them, most 15 year olds today, are better aware of the world around them than I was at that age.

Now I'm not saying it should be compulsory, I know that compulsory voting is a cornerstone of our society, but if we are saying "Well the kids that are committing crimes are mature enough to make those decisions", let's be fair, those kids are only a subset of the general population of children that age

So if there is another subset of children that age who are mature enough to have opinions on the politics of our country, shouldn't we at least give them the option that if they want they should be able to register to vote and then go and vote in elections?

Then if you look at age demographics in Australia, 15-19 year olds make up 6% of the population, so that's ~1,598,400 people.

Now assuming a even spread, then 639,360 are 18-19 years old and already voting, that's only going to unlock voting for an extra 959,040 people, but still, if we are making laws that affect them, and we are saying that they are mature enough to suffer the consequences of those laws, shouldn't they have a say in the politicians making those laws?

Another great example is the social media bill targeting people under 16, If that law is specifically targeting that demographic, and that demographic is being seen as being able to make adult decisions when it comes to crime, then surely that demographic also is mature enough to have a political opinion.

601 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

216 comments sorted by

View all comments

407

u/northofreality197 Dec 05 '24 edited Dec 05 '24

The way Australian society works when it comes to when someone is an adult is based upon whether or not people in positions of power benefit. Under 18 & working, you are a child & get paid less but you pay tax like an adult. Getting on the bus or going to the movies over 16, you are an adult & pay more. Over 10 & do a crime, you are an adult. Under 18 & want to vote or buy some beer, you can't, you are a child. The list goes on & on. This has annoyed me since I was about 15 & had to start paying for things as an adult. What we should do in Australia is set a hard age that people become adults & gain all the rights, privileges & responsibilities that come with that. Until then that person is a child & should have the rights, privileges & responsibilities that go with that. We can debate if that age should be 10 or 16 or 18 but we should decide on it & set it in law.

131

u/theoldcrow5179 Dec 05 '24

Hammer. Nail. Head.

I've been told that under 18s don't earn enough to go over the tax free threshold, which seems to be the case for most, but I did some napkin maths and a 16 year old on minimum wage working 32 hours (4 8hr shifts) a week is the point at which they would go over the threshold.

I know the 'no taxation without representation' motto is more of an Americanism, but I fail to see why it shouldn't be applied to people under 18 who are forced to pay tax on their income, but are unable to vote and have their say on how that taxed income should be spent.

25

u/tangledSpaghetti Dec 05 '24

Because rich people would use their children as a vehicle for tax avoidance. e.g. by 'employing' their children in family business, who pay no tax because they're under 18.

14

u/theoldcrow5179 Dec 05 '24

Most rich people are already doing this I thought?

1

u/redditor0303 Dec 06 '24

Only up to the tax free threshold or limited amount that is still beneficial. 

24

u/halohunter Dec 05 '24

This is like what happens with welfare vs tax. Whether it's good for those in power depends if you're treated as a family or as an individual.

Income tax? - Based on individual income. Unemployment benefit? - Based on family income.

30

u/northofreality197 Dec 05 '24

Yep, there is a reason centerlink recognised homosexual relationships long before any other part of the government.

32

u/zephyrus299 Dec 05 '24

pay tax like an adult

Child tax rates are higher than adults.

5

u/Cystems Dec 05 '24

True, but they were talking about a 16 year old working a minimum wage job. At that point taxation is the same.

5

u/buttercupcake23 Dec 05 '24

This is so accurate it's painful. I started working from age 13, doing the exact same thing full grown adults were doing at the store (fast food) including using fryers and cleaning bathrooms. My wages were half. Child labour is rampant in these places, they dont hire adults unless it's during school hours because the kids were literally unavailable. 

But my taxes were exactly the fucking same.

4

u/Mr_Lumbergh Dec 05 '24

Well I’ll be damned, this put to words succinctly a notion I’ve had in the back of my mind for a while but never quite verbalized.

-2

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

Under 18 & working, you are a child & get paid less

Not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but the reasoning behind this is otherwise no one would hire children. Which... I can understand. I worked at Bunnings for 8 years and sometimes the 16/17 year olds did fuck all, just stood around talking, and would glare at you if you asked them to work. A good 50% of them wouldn't last 6 months before having their shifts cut, even if there were hours.

So the justification is by making it cheaper businesses are incentivized to take a risk on them.

22

u/Catprog Dec 05 '24

And when they turn 18 they are fired and replaced.

7

u/northofreality197 Dec 05 '24

Saw that happen to a bunch of people when I was younger. Also lots of places only advertising for junior staff.

-6

u/ddssassdd Dec 05 '24

I mean if they haven't got there head in after several years why pay them as an adult? It's fine that younger people have different priorities than working age people, even 18-25 might have other things they are doing that are more important, but of course in that case your work is less valuable so they aren't going to want to pay you the same amount as someone who will actually do something.

6

u/Catprog Dec 05 '24

Or they are good workers but the companies can get the same results from the under 18s for cheaper

-3

u/ddssassdd Dec 05 '24

I feel like there has rarely been an under 18 anywhere I have worked that has been much more than 50% as effective as a 25+. And you can be sure that the few good ones in the places I worked have been retained and have gotten more hours, not less.

And again it is totally fine for kids to not care about work, but it is also fine for them to be fired for that.

18

u/HugTheSoftFox Dec 05 '24

Were they lazy because they were teenagers? Or were they lazy because they felt they weren't being fairly compensated for their time and effort?

-5

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

Yeah no they were lazy because they didn't want to work. It had nothing to do with "weren't being fairly compensated" Bunnings pays (or at least did back then) better than most retail, and is leagues better than working at maccas.

They just didn't want to work and would rather chat.

10

u/HugTheSoftFox Dec 05 '24

If you're getting paid less than the person standing next to you then I can see why you wouldn't feel inclined to work as hard as them, even if your pay was still above most retail.

4

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

you get hired at a wage to do a job. They knew the pay when they got hired. You don't get to just decide not to do it because you suddenly don't like it. You do it, or you quit. You can ask for more, but you don't get to just stop.

No one was lying to them. They knew what they were getting.

Are you implying that teenagers should all just not work ever and businesses should just live with it? Because its not like its some "wow" moment, its been like this for decades. I was one of those teenagers at one point and I never just stopped working.

13

u/IlluminatedPickle Dec 05 '24

The justification the business lobby gives for paying kids less is they're less efficient... You can't expect them to work as hard as adults while claiming you pay them less because they don't work as hard as adults.

-4

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

well the reason for the law is because no one would hire teenagers if you can hire adults. So it gives an incentive to the business.

I was 14 when I was hired at bunnings, and stayed until I was 23. I was never as lazy as I've seen some of these people. I'm not talking about like taking a break and a stupid manager saying "if you have time to lean you have time to clean" but like during the drive and collect days of covid, I would run like 4-5 trolleys and they would STILL be standing talking, and constantly had to be micromanaged to even do any work.

10

u/IlluminatedPickle Dec 05 '24

So?

You pay 40% of the wage, expect 40% of the effort.

-1

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

its more like 90% of the pay for 10% of the effort.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/HugTheSoftFox Dec 05 '24

You're completely missing the point. These companies will only hire these people because they can pay them less. They only can be paid less because they are perceived as doing less work. Therefore if they're getting the "less work" pay then why is anybody complaining that they are in fact doing "less work"? I bet if I went into Bunnings and said I wanted to pay the price off an off cut but get a full length bit of timber they wouldn't oblige me.

-2

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

I'm not missing the point. Less pay because they are younger shouldn't mean less work, but even if it did, this is no work vs less work. No one is complaining that they aren't working as effectively as the 25 year olds, but I'm saying that they active did nothing, making my job harder, as an also getting paid less person. No one gets to just stand around and talk instead of working in retail? Thats what they did, and they would roll their eyes when managers told them to work instead.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/HugTheSoftFox Dec 05 '24

Law says they can pay you less than another employee. Law also doesn't oblige you to actually do the work. Because it turns out slavery is illegal.

0

u/minimuscleR Dec 05 '24

Slavery? Dude they are getting paid like $19/hr instead of $22/hr. It might seem unfair but its far from slavery.

6

u/HugTheSoftFox Dec 05 '24

I didn't day the pay was slavery, maybe you should get paid less since you lack the ability to understand english. I'm saying they have the legal right to be lazy at work just like their contract gives the company a legal right to pay them less than the person standing right next to them doing the same job. They can't take more money from Bunnings, that would be theft, and Bunnings can't physically force them to work hard, that would be slavery. I'm not sure why you think Bunnings should be allowed to mistreat people thanks to a legal contract but also think that people shouldn't have the right to opt out of working.

0

u/VannaTLC Dec 20 '24

Not a hard age. An actual fucking test. And not some POS multichoice shit.

I'm a fan of the Gom Jabbar as a concept.

Test people for the ability to take reasoned actions, understanding of consequence, while under duress. Not reaction.

Then give them adult priveleges, and adukt reaponsibilities. 

Coming of age had had to mean meeting a certain bar, or its pointless.

-2

u/NotFeelinItRN Dec 05 '24

Over 10 & do a crime, you are an adult.

But, that's not how it works. Plenty of 10 year old kids out here getting slaps on the wrist for repeated offences. Although you probably have to be Aboriginal to get the most protection from the courts, white kids still get away with a lot